Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds a real behavioral rule beyond the annotations: only unapproved revisions may be edited, and approval freezes the document. The annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the immutability gate is genuine added context, though it says nothing about what an edit overwrites or whether the change is reversible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the mutation verb and the critical constraint front-loaded. Zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The eligibility gate is covered, which is the most important thing, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations explaining scope, the description omits which fields can be changed and what a successful edit does to the prior content.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter at all. It never clarifies that title/body are the editable fields while document_id is the required lookup key, so an agent gets no help beyond raw schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Edit) and resource (proposal/SOW revision) plus an eligibility constraint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_consulting_document_revision and approve_consulting_document_revision, though it never names those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear when-to-use ('unapproved') and when-not ('approved revisions are immutable') conditions. It lacks an explicit pointer to the alternative tool for approved revisions (e.g. approve_consulting_document_revision), so it falls short of the 5-level routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.